W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > March 2009

Re: draft response for 52b / JR6b

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:28:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090312.062835.253861499.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ivan@w3.org
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: draft response for 52b / JR6b
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:39:29 +0100

> I have an additional point. Jonathan also says:
> [[[
> I have no idea what an RDF graph that is not well-formed would be.
> The cited document uses "well-formed" in several different ways, none
> of which is what I think you mean.  Please delete all occurrences of
> "well-formed" from this document unless you can provide or cite a
> particular definition.
> ]]]
> I think it is worth referring to the fact that the new version of the
> Syntax document will give a more explicit lists of those restrictions
> that allow RDF graphs to be mapped back to the Structure. (With the
> assumption that this is what we meant by 'well-formed' in this context.)
> Ivan

I believe that all the "well-formed" were in the RDF Semantics, and have
since been changed.  This falls under the "specific editorial concerns
with the RDF-Based Semantics document" which have been explicitly
excluded from this reply.  Anyway this "well-formed" isn't related to
the conditions on ontology structures in Syntax.

Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 10:27:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:10 UTC